Apparently by design

[paul emmett]

Hello, Michael.

I would say we're most certian with MJK, but there's still Chapman and her muslin and comb, Eddowes and her intestine and thimble, Stride and her cachous.

Night.

Using only what is imperical evidence, Mary Jane Kelly is the only victim that had things deliberately placed for certain. Why... is certainly up for grabs, but not the intentional placement of things about the corpse.

She is therefore the only victim within the Canon that we can say this about with any certainty.

Best regards.

[bolo]

Hi, bolo.

I'm okay with feet on the ground, but those clouds in the sky give me pause. I know that your cloud analogy is a respected argument against reading in or finding meaning in chaos. But I think there is a crucial difference between cloud gazing and crime scene gazing. Clouds are shaped by what? Chance? God?? Scientific principles??? The crime scene was shaped by a human psyche, a psyche which made certian choices, choices which JTR might have been aware of or not. So he could have had "a gusto for elaborate symbolism"(nice phrase), or he could have made choices driven by early repressed trauma, or he could have just been in a hurry--or more likely some kind of combination of the above and more. But it seems to me that, unlike the cloud case, there is meaning in the crime scene, and it is the scholar's job to try to find it.

The thing is - we probably know more about cloud formations and the human brain that constantly tries to make sense of visual input ("put us in picture") than what really happened in Miller's Court 13, Mitre Square or Hanbury Street, so the cloud gazing analogy is not too far off it seems; there is lots of speculation and self-deceit involved in both cases.

Trouble is that things may get out of hand quite quickly as soon as people start taking their own extravagant theories too seriously. Theorizing over hidden symbolic meanings of victim wounds or kidneys under one's head is all fine and dandy but we should be very careful with the results, or how we apply them. That's my main gripe I have with boundless theorizing, it's not the theorizing itself that gives me headaches (it's fun, no doubt about that), it's people jumping to overly quick conclusions inspired by overly creative theories...

By the by, your unorthodox theories on the question of design sound intriuging. But I don't want you to go to bad feelings.

Maybe I will come back to that later on in a Pub thread when I have a crate of German beer handy, I'll give you a shout!

[paul emmett]

similar to the figures and schemes that start to appear if you lie on your back in the grass and watch the clouds in the sky on a warm spring day for a while. I have a bunch of way more unorthodox theories on the question of design as well but I always get a rather bad feeling when discussing them, I fear that this blurrs my and other peoples' focus on the facts... interesting as these theories may be.


it also doesn't take an invincible criminal mastermind with a gusto for elaborate symbolism to rip a woman up and place her organs and intestines around her body.

Hi, bolo.

I'm okay with feet on the ground, but those clouds in the sky give me pause. I know that your cloud analogy is a respected argument against reading in or finding meaning in chaos. But I think there is a crucial difference between cloud gazing and crime scene gazing. Clouds are shaped by what? Chance? God?? Scientific principles??? The crime scene was shaped by a human psyche, a psyche which made certian choices, choices which JTR might have been aware of or not. So he could have had "a gusto for elaborate symbolism"(nice phrase), or he could have made choices driven by early repressed trauma, or he could have just been in a hurry--or more likely some kind of combination of the above and more. But it seems to me that, unlike the cloud case, there is meaning in the crime scene, and it is the scholar's job to try to find it.

By the by, your unorthodox theories on the question of design sound intriuging. But I don't want you to go to bad feelings.

[bolo]

Hi, bolo.

I quote you at length because, even though I disagree, I think what you say is candid and important. In the first paragraph here, it is, of course, more than a breast: Jack puts breast with kidneys and uterus--two organs he has been concerned with before. But I am most concerned with the phrase, "without reading too much into the whole thing." How do we know when THAT is? I know that you are very careful about the subjective nature of JTR theories, so how can you say when something means and when it doesn't? And just because we can't come up with a theory, a meaning, about ,say, why these organs are under her head, does that mean that JTR had no reason--conscious or unconscious--for putting them there?

I would not go as far as rejecting theories on the design question per se, even if they don't completely make sense to me. My suggestion that the breast (I unintentionally left out the uterus and kidneys) may have been used as a support for the head is an attempt of a more practical approach to something that can be easily over-analyzed if one looks too hard at the mess that is Mary's body (or Kate's for that matter), similar to the figures and schemes that start to appear if you lie on your back in the grass and watch the clouds in the sky on a warm spring day for a while. I have a bunch of way more unorthodox theories on the question of design as well but I always get a rather bad feeling when discussing them, I fear that this blurrs my and other peoples' focus on the facts... interesting as these theories may be.

That is what I mean with "reading too much into it". Of course there is a reason why the breast, kidneys and uterus ended up under Mary's head or the liver between her feet so it's definitely worthwhile to discuss these things. Personally I just try to keep my feet as firmly on the ground as possible in this regard.

In the second paragraph above I feel that you do give the reason for why for you JTR can't be doing something that has symbolic meaning for him: "It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough 'emotional capacities' left . . .." Again, I don't see why. But I fear that it's just a cleaned up version of the Mad Dog theory I discussed earlier in this thread. And again I know you are open-minded, but I think the phrase "hard for me to accept" is relevant. I think somewhere, maybe in our own unconscious, we are doing our own cleaned up version of the 1888 feeling that it was hard to accept that JTR was an Englishman. Now it still seems hard to accept that JTR could have been an intelligent, controlled, playful, non-salivating Enlishman--or perhaps human being.

I think that if one finds numerous instances which suggest cold and calculating, then JTR's most likely cold and calculating.

Good points.

I, too, think that the killer was extremly cold and even calculating to some extend, I also never really bought the lone madman theory. A raving, uncontrollable madman probably would not be able to focus his mind on the task of sneaky murder - but it also doesn't take an invincible criminal mastermind with a gusto for elaborate symbolism to rip a woman up and place her organs and intestines around her body. The question wether the wounds and organ placement was intentend or not and/or followed a certain symbolism is certainly valid but the answers may be much more prosaic than we think...

Hi Jon,

You can suggest that the intestines over the shoulders was probably for killer convenience, and items by the bodies could have shaken loose and fallen where found, but you cannot suggest that organs found placed under extremities was accidental.

Also, one account of Kate had that 2 foot section "twisted into her neck wound". That is a lone account, and should be taken with that in mind, but that would constitute intentional placement if accurate.

I think part of the reason these kills took place outdoors, with a single exception, is that it afforded the killer an opportunity to confound investigations by creating a spectacle...masking any real intentions with the overwhelming horror of the site itself. You can safely assume that many of these policeman hadnt seen anything like this before, nor would again.

I believe one explanation for Mary Janes crime scene is that the killer masked a simple intention of murder behind a perceived mad killers flailing knife. The more complex the motive appears, the better it is for that kind of killer.

To JS....Mary is the only one with probable defensive wounds. She is therefore the only one that wasnt subdued and lowered to the ground before the killer even used the knife. The other possible exception is of course Liz. Its painfully obvious these two murders were quite different from the rest.

Cheers.

[JSchmidt]

If I understand the statement of Dr. Phillips correctly, she was killed by serverance of her carotid while being rolled on her left side. The perpetrator may have rolled her back in a more flat position.

The wounds inflicted on poor MJK seem to be really vicious and arbitrary. No obvious patterns, no symmetry to the wounds on thighs and pubes. The same on her face. All external features at least partly removed (why not completely?) and the general structure destroyed by cuts.
Makes me wonder why he should be at least somewhat methodical in the placement of the removed bits and parts when he is so sloppy in removing some and not the others.
But then again the organs are strewn about. The question now is really if he just packed them where there was space for them or if he wanted to stash them in any specific order and spacing.
My gut feeling (apart from being a bit queasy after rereading Dr. Bond's postmortem) tells me it was more pragmatism. But I can't substantiate it. And that irks me.

What I find troubling are the jagged cuts on her arms and forearms. Defensive wounds maybe? Do we have those on any other Macnaghten Five victims?

[Sam Flynn]

I felt Jack [moved] the body over TO facilitate organ removal.

I agree with you there - although we must be very careful which words we use in that case. Although it takes more keystrokes, I prefer the phrase "for practical reasons" over "by design".

[paul emmett]

[i]



Hrrrm . . . I do not know. I am not convinced that Jack wrote the letter that "coined" the name.



Anyways, that[holding on to the cachous] can be explain by reflexive flexion of the hands that happens when you separate the spinal cord from the brain--like kill the brain through strangulation/removing perfusion of the brain by opening the carotid and jugular.



One has to be careful one is not reading significance into things. Granted, with the lack of evidence regarding meaning, it is easy to do that.

Hi, J.D.

I'm still thinking publishers will be coming to you on this one.

Without arguing the authenticity of the letter, I'd just comment that showing that JTR is subtilely performative works two ways. Once the instances start to accumulate, then new instances--like the letter--fit more readily into the picture being painted. And I do think that the "logic" in the P.S. of "Dear Boss" is a lot like the "logic" of The GG.

Finally, while reflexive flexion does take over, I just can't see why Stride wouldn't drop them cachous to struggle back, break her fall, protect her throat, whatever.

Good luck with that book thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why not look upon what he did to Kelly as part of his signature.

With Chapman and Eddowes he removed intestines.

With Kelly he had more time and removed almost everything a natural progression.

[paul emmett]

If you are referring to the positioning of organs, Paul, it's worth noting that only the spleen was found on the bed at the left side of the body

Hi, Sam. Actually, I wasn't. I was trying to respond to the suggestion that the breast, uterus and kidneys were under her head because Kelly's body was rolled over onto them after they were removed.

Also, I'm not even going for shock value here: I just wanted to say that this placement smacks more of design--and that I felt Jack rolled the body over TO faccilitate organ removal.

[paul emmett]

MJK's killer may have placed one of her breasts under the head to make her look to the left so that the first one who'd take a peek through the window into the room would look straight into her gashed face, at least that's the only theoretical "breast placement" explanation I can come up with without reading too much into the whole thing.




It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough "emotional capacities" left to dig too deeply into some weird symbolism during or shortly after the murders. There may have been design or planning involved but only on a very crude level in order to gross people out.

Hi, bolo.

I quote you at length because, even though I disagree, I think what you say is candid and important. In the first paragraph here, it is, of course, more than a breast: Jack puts breast with kidneys and uterus--two organs he has been concerned with before. But I am most concerned with the phrase, "without reading too much into the whole thing." How do we know when THAT is? I know that you are very careful about the subjective nature of JTR theories, so how can you say when something means and when it doesn't? And just because we can't come up with a theory, a meaning, about ,say, why these organs are under her head, does that mean that JTR had no reason--conscious or unconscious--for putting them there?

In the second paragraph above I feel that you do give the reason for why for you JTR can't be doing something that has symbolic meaning for him: "It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough 'emotional capacities' left . . .." Again, I don't see why. But I fear that it's just a cleaned up version of the Mad Dog theory I discussed earlier in this thread. And again I know you are open-minded, but I think the phrase "hard for me to accept" is relevant. I think somewhere, maybe in our own unconscious, we are doing our own cleaned up version of the 1888 feeling that it was hard to accept that JTR was an Englishman. Now it still seems hard to accept that JTR could have been an intelligent, controlled, playful, non-salivating Enlishman--or perhaps human being.

I think that if one finds numerous instances which suggest cold and calculating, then JTR's most likely cold and calculating.

[Doctor X]

I think you've hit on THE perfect title for THE book on JTR.

The Ultimate Complete Speculative Jack the Ripper



*Starts looking for a publisher*

I also liked "bit of 'silly buggers' with the police", because I think JTR is performative, but most subtle. It seems the height of irony to say that JTR wasn't into being obvious when the killings were so "in your face," but I think his silly buggers were quite indirect. The meaning of The Goulston Graffito, for example, is still being debated. The fact that "jack" meant "the penis, espescially when erect" in 1800's British slang(Spears, SLANG AND EUPHEMISM, 208) makes "Jack The Ripper" a morbid but esoteric "joke."

Hrrrm . . . I do not know. I am not convinced that Jack wrote the letter that "coined" the name.

And suppose he did leave a message; suppose he did leave the cachous in Stride's hand to let the police know he was cleaning up those "dirty whores"--well, that would be subtle!

More subtle than some of my posts! Anyways, that can be explain by reflexive flexion of the hands that happens when you separate the spinal cord from the brain--like kill the brain through strangulation/removing perfusion of the brain by opening the carotid and jugular.

As far as MJK. We know what's on the table, right? Bowyer didn't, but Bond did. Also, you cant put those parts under MJK's head for convienience, can you?

Depends on how big the bed is. What I mean by that is, he has to start putting pieces somewhere . . . running out of room. Anyways, my caution is just a caution. It does not take much for me to believe he had a reason for putting organs under her head; the problem is determining what that was from convenience to his disagreement with Prof. Moriarty's binomial theorem. . . .

Sam Flynn and bolo's points are noted. One has to be careful one is not reading significance into things. Granted, with the lack of evidence regarding meaning, it is easy to do that.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

even if [Kelly] were pulled over [from the right side of the bed], there would have to be some positioning [of organs?].

If you are referring to the positioning of organs, Paul, it's worth noting that only the spleen was found on the bed at the left side of the body - arguably where the killer spent much of his time during the mutilation. In other words, the killer seems to have kept his "working surface" (i.e. that part of the bed nearest him) relatively uncluttered. This smacks of practicality, rather than a desire to place organs for shock value. If he were interested in the latter, why not pile everything up on the left side of the bed, where someone peeping through the window would have copped a real eye-full; or, indeed as some accounts would have it, strew Kelly's innards all over the room?

[bolo]

MJK's killer may have placed one of her breasts under the head to make her look to the left so that the first one who'd take a peek through the window into the room would look straight into her gashed face, at least that's the only theoretical "breast placement" explanation I can come up with without reading too much into the whole thing.

The design question is very difficult to answer in my opinion. What may seem as design may very well have been just a necessity or even coincidence.

It's hard for me to accept that the killer had enough "emotional capacities" left to dig too deeply into some weird symbolism during or shortly after the murders. There may have been design or planning involved but only on a very crude level in order to gross people out.